Muslims On Bollywood

An Interview With the Actor of In the Name of God

Naseeruddin Shah

Often cast as an angst-ridden character, Shah says he has come to be seen as a "serious actor." But there is a humorous side to his intelligence that reveals itself as IslamOnline.net sits down to chat with him about the following:

- On Acting
- On International Cinema
 - Working on the League 
- Why not more?
 - The Oscars
- Portraying "Gandhi"
- On Khuda Ke Liye (In the Name of God)  
 - Why he chose it
 - His role 
 - Muslim 

On Acting

IOL: Who is your inspiration?

Naseeruddin Shah: My favorite actor of all times is a person who you would have never heard of. His name is Geoffrey Kendal. Geoffrey Kendal lived all his life as an itinerant actor with his wife, his daughters. He did not have any sons, but he had a group of actors called Shakespeare-aana. He used to travel all over Asia performing Shakespeare in schools. From the age of five, I have been watching Geoffrey Kendal. I think he is the greatest actor I have ever seen. Not only as an actor, but also because what he did.

The kind of theater awareness and awareness of Shakespeare and Shaw that Geoffrey Kendal created in India has not been done by an Indian. And (he) never had a home, never had any money; he just felt this is his mission. And he lived all his life, right till he died performing gems from Shakespeare or a Shaw play or a scene from Shakespeare here and there. He is my idol in every way.

IOL: What led you to acting?

Shah: I saw a lot of movies at school where we were. It was a great school in Nainital in Uttar Pradesh where our Dad sent us to give us the best education. He was serious about it because it was a pretty expensive school, but I got nothing out of there but movies.

Somebody in that school knew about movies, so we saw the most fantastic movies ranging from On the Waterfront to Mickey Mouse. I have seen the James Dean movies, I have seen the Paul Newney movies, Orson Welles’ movies, Zorro Rides Again,The Charge of the Feather River, Fosters Paradigm, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and Tom Thumb.

I had aspired more towards the American and British movies I saw as a kid. My aspirations were always towards actors like Spencer Tracy, Charles Thornton - old timers, but they will never be forgotten because they were so great unlike some of our greats in India who have been forgotten. Actors like Anthony Quinn, Peter O’Toole, these were the actors I idolized and wanted to be like.

On International Cinema

Shah: He was always a wonderful person. He was fun and I was a kid when I saw him playing James Bond.

But the thrill soon wore off. He was in his trailer and I was in my trailer. One had to wait endless hours before a shot was set up. There were so many special effects and computer graphics and stuff in that film. Six long lonely months in Prague! It was not fun; nor was watching the film fun.

But it satisfied my curiosity about big-budget Hollywood movies. I have always wondered how they do these monumental films where they have palaces collapsing, and stuff like that, and thousands and millions of crowds, the kind of action sequences they do. I was curious about it, and satisfied my curiosity.

IOL: Why did you not appear in more of these international movies?

Shah: I have now come to a very comfortable equation with myself. I had hoped of course to work in the West more than I have. I have got my taste of it. I have worked in two theaters in London, and one in Paris.

Also, I did one big budget Hollywood movie (League ). It  is not  all that very much different. A big budget Hollywood movie is like a big budget Bollywood movie; there is  not much difference in anything – except perhaps in the taste. 

As for doing theater there, it was not a very satisfactory experience. I think I have come to the conclusion that I was not born in India by mistake.

IOL: What did you think of the Oscars this year?

Shah: I really feel Frost/Nixon should have won almost every award there is at the Oscars – if the Oscars were not so patently rigged.

Frost/Nixon was made as a very serious endeavor. It is about David Frost, who wanted an interview from Nixon after his fall from grace, the interview itself, that one final meeting with Nixon, and the very sad, devastated Nixon living on his ranch in Los Angeles with nothing to do, and nobody around him.

Frank Langella who plays Nixon usually plays small parts in Hollywood now and then. Langella looks nothing like Nixon at all, but you forget that completely after a few minutes, and just take him to be Nixon.

It is an absolutely superb film in every way – the writing, the way the scenes are done, the way the screenplay is handled, the way the actors perform.

IOL: Speaking of another Oscar film, you tried for Mahatma Gandhi in Richard Attenborough’s "Gandhi."

Shah: Yeah. That is  a very long and convoluted story. I read about Attenborough wanting to make a film on Gandhi when I must have been about 15 years old. He came to India a film called Guns at Batasi in which he was acting. And he announced this that he wanted making a film on Gandhi with Alec Guiness at that time. And I said, hell, Alec Guiness? He is  a great actor, but he is  not Indian, he cannot play Gandhi.

And I had this major dream. And as the years went by, I kept reading about it, then actors like Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay, Donald Blessens, they were all talked about. Then Attenborough finally landed in India to make the movie and ostensibly to cast the role. I was the darling of the arts cinema those days so of course I got to meet him. He took me to London for a screen test which did not  happen.

I came back from London and all my friends were saying "Hey! You’re the bee’s knees now." But I knew that I had not the chance, because I was not even properly auditioned. So this whole natak (drama) was basically just to create a bit of news to pre-empt objections that would arise when he was casting and Englishman. He had decided on Ben Kingsley. And Ben Kingsley’s not Indian at all – that was a big hogwash that his real name is something Nathuram Bhanji or some stuff like that. In fact when the news about Ben appeared, it said Indian actor to play Gandhi.

IOL: But you did eventually get to play Gandhi.

Shah: In a play, many years later. And in a film called Hey Ram (O Ram!) in which a six-year-old could have played it, with the kind of make up I had on. My face was completely covered with prosthetic, anybody could have done this.

On “Khuda Ke Liye”

IOL: Why did you choose to work on Khuda Ke Liye?

Shah: I would  rather spend a couple of days shooting in a film which I feel I would like to participate. In the Pakistani film Khuda Ke Liye, I had just one scene, but I consider it the most important film I have done.

I said ‘No’ to it the moment I was approached. I have seen some Pakistani films and most are dreadful, except the film called Khamosh Paani (Silent Waters) made two years ago which is absolutely wonderful, and which has not been seen in Pakistan.

Then there was recently a film called Ramchand Pakistani which is also very good, about al little boy from India who gets lost.

The title Khuda Ke Liye sounded like one of those movies I would never go to see. But then the director sent me just two pages of the script, of the scene that I was supposed to do. I was in tears when I read it. I did not  bother to read the rest of the script, or even ask what it was about. I felt if this is the level at which the film is, it has to be great. It is technically it is a bit primitive, but it is a fantastic film.

IOL: Tell us about your role in that movie.

Shah: I am  playing an Islamic scholar who is called in into this court case where a girl is accused of un-Islamic behavior, and because they feel that my testimony will be the last nail in her coffin. But what the character turns up and says turns the tables completely on the accusers.

He gives an absolutely novel and very progressive interpretation of all these issues about Islamic behavior, and codes, and appearance, and dress, and that music is supposed to be haram. All these issues which are propagated, and which are not true at all, but which a lot of Muslims believe.

IOL: You say it was important for you as a Muslim to have done this movie?

Shah: Yes, because it states a point of view which has never been stated.

In Hindi movies, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees are always stock characters and caricatures. The Muslim is there to get killed by the hero, so the Hindu hero can avenge him, and so we can prove how secular we are, right? A Parsee is always an idiot; a Christian is always a drunkard; a Sardar is always a wild, uncouth man. These are the rigid sort of forms within which we operate.

You would  never find a character like the one I play in Khuda Ke Liye ever in a Hindi movie. There is  no Muslim filmmaker in India who has bothered to make a film on this subject. There is  no Hindu filmmaker in India who has bothered to make a film on Hindu fundamentalism either. Imagine making a film like that in Pakistan; it was really brave.